¹ú²úAV

Judge Adda

Judge Adda

Showing 41 - 60 of 324

En ce qui concerne le cadre juridique pertinent, quel que soit le statut accord¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯emploi ant¨¦rieur et/ou actuel du demandeur au sein de l¡¯OIM dans le cadre du programme ASHI, au moment pertinent de la demande d¡¯AMCS, le demandeur ne se trouvait pas dans un d¨¦lai de 31 jours avant ou apr¨¨s la s¨¦paration lorsqu¡¯une demande d¡¯AMCS doit ¨ºtre soumise.

D¨¨s lors, m¨ºme si les termes de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e ¨¦taient trompeurs, la requ¨¦rante n¡¯avait pas le droit d¡¯¨ºtre inscrite ¨¤ la R¨¦gime ASHI lorsqu¡¯il en a fait la demande.

With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant¡¯s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.

Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.

Il existe en effet une incertitude et peut-¨ºtre aussi un d¨¦saccord sur divers faits importants de l¡¯affaire. Par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯affaire ne peut ¨ºtre jug¨¦e sur la base d¡¯un jugement sommaire.  

La partie de la pr¨¦sente affaire concernant l¡¯OIM n¡¯est pas recevable en vertu de la doctrine juridique de la litispendance.

S¡¯agissant de la d¨¦cision HLIS, le Requ¨¦rant renvoie ¨¤ sa demande d¡¯¨¦valuation de gestion du 4 novembre 2022. ?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨ºte en l¡¯esp¨¨ce est d¨¦pos¨¦e apr¨¨s cette date, cette partie de la requ¨ºte est donc, de ce point de vue, d¨¦sormais recevable en vertu de la...

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.  

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l¡¯ONU n¡¯est pas le Chef de l¡¯administration de l¡¯OIM, et l¡¯OIM n¡¯a pas conclu d¡¯accord sp¨¦cial avec le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral acceptant la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal du contentieux administratif. Au lieu de cela, l¡¯OIM rel¨¨ve de la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal administratif de l¡¯Organisation internationale du Travail.

?tant donn¨¦ que la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation de la gestion pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le requ¨¦rant n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e avant que la requ¨ºte ne soit soumise au Tribunal du contentieux administratif en l¡¯esp¨¨ce, le Tribunal n¡¯a pas la comp¨¦tence ratione materiae requise en vertu de la...

The United Nations Secretary-General in not the Chief Administrative Officer of IOM, and IOM has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General accepting the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. Instead, IOM falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

As the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was not filed before submitting the application to the Dispute Tribunal in the present case, the Tribunal does not have the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction under staff rule 11.2. The challenge against the decision of...

Le contexte de l¡¯affaire °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô n¡¯est pas similaire. Essentiellement, dans l¡¯affaire °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, le demandeur faisait l¡¯objet d¡¯une enqu¨ºte, alors qu¡¯en l¡¯esp¨¨ce, le demandeur ¨¦tait le plaignant. Par cons¨¦quent, dans l¡¯affaire °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, le demandeur s¡¯est oppos¨¦ ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte disciplinaire ouverte contre lui-m¨ºme sur la base d¡¯une plainte pour inconduite d¨¦pos¨¦e par d¡¯autres, puis il a contest¨¦ une d¨¦cision de rejet de sa demande de r¨¦vision ind¨¦pendante de l¡¯enqu¨ºte. Le tribunal d¡¯appel rejeta toutefois la contestation du requ¨¦rant au motif que le d¨¦cideur finit par lui donner raison car...

The context of the case in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô is not similar. Essentially, in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant¡¯s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ tous les facteurs utilis¨¦s pour d¨¦terminer la sanction appropri¨¦e pour l¡¯inconduite du demandeur, le Tribunal conclut que l¡¯USG/DMSPC a suffisamment motiv¨¦ la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e et a ¨¦tabli un lien ou une relation rationnelle entre la preuve et l¡¯objectif de la mesure disciplinaire.

Having reviewed all the factors used in determining the appropriate sanction for the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the USG/DMSPC has provided sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and has established a rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action.

Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que la contestation du demandeur de la d¨¦cision de placer une note sur le dossier officiel du demandeur et la d¨¦cision de l¡¯UNICEF de ne pas d¨¦terminer si le demandeur a commis une faute n¡¯est pas cr¨¦able. Les d¨¦conseilles n¡¯ont aucune cons¨¦quence directe sur les termes et conditions de l¡¯ancienne nomination du demandeur.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and UNICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable.  The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.  

Les divers actes soumis par l'intim¨¦ - R¨¦solution de l'assemblage g¨¦n¨¦ral 76/245 (questions relatives au budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2022) du 24 d¨¦cembre 2021; Rapport ACABQ A / 76/7 (premier rapport sur le budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2022) dat¨¦ du 13 ao?t 2021; Projet de cinqui¨¨me r¨¦solution du comit¨¦ soumis par son pr¨¦sident ¨¤ la suite des consultations informelles A / C.5 / 77 / L.23 (questions relatives au budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2023) du 30 d¨¦cembre 2022; R¨¦solution de l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale A / RES / 77/262 (soixante-septi¨¨me session, point de l'ordre du jour 138, budget...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

La requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas ¨¦ligible pour demander et participer au processus de s¨¦lection du poste car, apr¨¨s avoir r¨¦ussi l'examen G ¨¤ N, elle s'est vu offrir un placement YPP et a refus¨¦ ce placement YPP. Le tribunal constate que le demandeur, un personnel de service g¨¦n¨¦ral qui ne figurait plus sur la liste des ?candidats retenus? pour l'examen comp¨¦titif, n'¨¦tait donc pas ¨¦ligible pour demander et participer au processus de s¨¦lection des postes dans la cat¨¦gorie professionnelle, y compris le Poste. La d¨¦cision d'exclure le demandeur de la proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection du poste ¨¦tait donc l¨¦gale.

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...